Much ado about divorce

Much ado about divorce | Daily Tribune

How many people do we personally know who are stuck in marriages they had checked out of years ago? How many scandals have we witnessed unfold publicly involving married people in illicit affairs?

The common argument we always hear is that divorce is immoral and is against our deeply ingrained Filipino family values. But isn’t it also true the other way around? Isn’t it just as true that failing to allow divorce in the country has resulted in the erosion of the very moral fiber of society that it seeks to protect and preserve?

Many families are undeniably irreparably broken and yet the lack of access to a mechanism that would allow them to legally break free of the marriage bond has caused couples to live in a sham marriage while actually living separate lives and raising new families — which is arguably, if not more so, as “immoral” as getting a divorce.

What is marriage? By law, it is a contract. Unlike ordinary commercial contracts, marriage is considered special and is afforded extra protection. Our Constitution declares marriage an inviolable social institution in recognition of the family as the cornerstone of a stable society.

Many will surely argue against the simplification of marriage as a mere contract where the meeting of the minds is the driving force for its validity. The truth is a marriage contract governs the obligations and responsibilities of both parties, and deals with the property relations of husband and wife. But if you look at our laws, the only thing that really makes marriage “special” is the fact that it is the one contract that one is not allowed to extricate oneself from, even if it no longer positively benefits all the parties to it.

The lack of a divorce law forces couples to stay in a marriage even when the parties no longer consent to or want to stay married. How many abused women and children are made to suffer because divorce is not an option? Yes, there are annulment and legal separation, but who can afford them except the rich and influential?

The policy has worked against abused women and their children, and is very anti-poor. Why bother to marry when it does not make any difference for those without any property or assets to govern by contract? What exactly does marriage bring to the table for the poor but more suffering when someone no longer wants to be in the marriage? What use is suing for support when most people live a hand-to-mouth existence? Isn’t public policy supposed to weigh the benefits against the ills, should divorce be allowed?

If we open our minds to it, divorce would mean freedom for many who are oppressed and hopelessly stuck in a bad marriage. The beautiful thing about the law is it is customizable. While there are valid ills and concerns to be avoided, safeguards can be creatively crafted to ensure that the divorce law is responsive to the issues while protecting society. An annulment does not and will never provide the same relief as a divorce because an annulment denies the marriage ever happened, while a divorce acknowledges a marriage only that it failed.

Why are we so afraid of divorce? What right does the government have to impose its will when it conflicts with the happiness and well-being of its citizens. Marriage is a choice, and opting out of it should also be a matter of choice.